Content area
Full Text
The finding that extrinsic rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation has been highly controversial since it first appeared (Deci, 1971). A meta-analysis published in this journal (Cameron & Pierce, 1994) concluded that the undermining effect was minimal and largely inconsequential for educational policy. However, a more recent meta-analysis (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999) showed that the Cameron and Pierce meta-analysis was seriously flawed and that its conclusions were incorrect. This article briefly reviews the results of the more recent meta-analysis, which showed that tangible rewards do indeed have a substantial undermining effect. The meta-analysis provided strong support for cognitive evaluation theory (Deci & Ryan, 1980), which Cameron and Pierce had advocated abandoning. The results are briefly discussed in terms of their relevance for educational practice.
Gold stars, best-student awards, honor roles, pizzas for reading, and other reward-focused incentive systems have long been part of the currency of schools. Typically intended to motivate or reinforce student learning, such techniques have been widely advocated by some educators, although, in recent years, a few commentators have questioned their widespread use. The controversy has been prompted in part by psychological research that has demonstrated negative effects of extrinsic rewards on students' intrinsic motivation to learn. Some studies have suggested that, rather than always being positive motivators, rewards can at times undermine rather than enhance self-motivation, curiosity, interest, and persistence at learning tasks. Because of the widespread use of rewards in schools, a careful summary of reward effects on intrinsic motivation would seem to be of considerable importance for educators.
Accordingly, in the Fall 1994 issue of Review of Educational Research, Cameron and Pierce (1994) presented a meta-analysis of extrinsic reward effects on intrinsic motivation, concluding that, overall, rewards do not decrease intrinsic motivation. Implicitly acknowledging that intrinsic motivation is important for learning and adjustment in educational settings (see, e.g., Ryan & La Guardia, 1999), Cameron and Pierce nonetheless stated that "teachers have no reason to resist implementing incentive systems in the classroom" (p. 397). They also advocated abandoning Deci and Ryan's (1980) cognitive evaluation theory (CET), which had initially been formulated to explain both positive and negative reward effects on intrinsic motivation.
In the Spring 1996 issue of RER, three commentaries were published (Kohn, 1996; Lepper, Keavney, & Drake,...